CITY OF COCOA; UNDERWRITERS ADJUSTING CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL JONES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Cocoa and its insurance carrier appealed a workers' compensation order in which the Deputy Commissioner failed to rule on the claimant's claim for permanent disability benefits. The court reversed and remanded, holding that once maximum medical improvement (MMI) was reached more than 90 days before the hearing, the Deputy had authority and obligation to adjudicate permanent benefits rather than reserve jurisdiction.
The Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to reserve jurisdiction once MMI was reached more than 90 days prior to the hearing. The issue of permanent benefits was ripe for adjudication and the Deputy was obligated to rule on it rather than postpone the decision.
[1] A deputy commissioner must rule on claims for permanent disability benefits when the issue is ripe for adjudication.
[2] A deputy commissioner lacks authority to reserve jurisdiction on issues ripe for adjudication when the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement more than 90 days…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Since MMI was reached more than 90 days prior to the hearing, the Deputy had no authority to reserve jurisdiction to determine loss of wage earning capacity which postponed ruling on permanent benefits, an issue which was ready for adjudication.”
The court's core holding establishing that the Deputy lacked authority to reserve jurisdiction once the 90-day period had expired.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Jones was injured on July 24, 1979, while loading a tractor onto a truck. Two physicians disagreed on the degree of permanent physical impairme…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Permanent Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeal from orders of the Deputy Commissioner wherein he failed to rule on the claim for permanent disability benefits. We agree with the employer/carrier that the Deputy should have ruled on the permanent benefits and reverse.
The claimant was injured on July 24, 1979, while attempting to load a small tractor onto a truck. Dr. Kaplan felt that the claimant suffered a 15% permanent physical impairment, while Dr. Gibbons estimated a 5% impairment. Since the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) was not determined prior to the hearing, counsel for the employer/carrier noted for the record that § 440.25(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), prohibited maturation of a claim for loss of wage earning capacity until 90 days after a claimant reached MMI. He indicated that since the MMI date was an issue, the statute might or might not apply. The Deputy found that MMI was attained more than 90 days before the hearing, and found a 5% to 15% permanent physical impairment. He reserved jurisdiction to determine the issue of wage loss, although the appropriate standard was loss of wage earning capacity, and thus did not rule on permanent benefits. Counsel for the employer/carrier filed a motion for rehearing, alerting the court that wage loss was the wrong standard, and that the issue of permanent benefits was ripe for adjudication, but the Deputy’s revised order reserved jurisdiction to determine loss of wage earning capacity. When counsel filed a motion to amend the second order, the Deputy entered a third order staying execution of his previous orders.
Since MMI was reached more than 90 days prior to the hearing, the Deputy had no authority to reserve jurisdiction to determine loss of wage earning capacity which postponed ruling on permanent benefits, an issue which was ready for adjudication. Poole & Kent Co. v. Asbell, 394 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Appellants argue that this court should order the Deputy to limit a permanent benefits award to between 5% and 15% because the claimant did not conduct a work search to enable the Deputy to find a greater percentage of disability based on loss of wage earning capacity. This issue is appealed prematurely because the Deputy has not addressed the amount of permanency, and this court should not restrict his decision beforehand. This case is reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mundy v. Madison Lee Mundy, Jr., 498 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…st of the marriage and has no independent income and no present capacity for self-support, and the wife may have the care of minor children. Allison v. Allison, supra, citing Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Harrell v. Harrell, 403 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Golden v. Golden, 395 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Swen v. Swen, 488 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Green v. Green, 484 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Condren v. Condren, 475 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The wife in thi…
Authorities Cited
- Poole & Kent Co. & Reliance Ins. Co. v. Asbell, 394 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)